Mike Tyson had a better career than Larry Holmes.

You tell then my buddy Sangria.

 

Solid list pretty similar to mine except I swapped Holmes and Tyson but either way works

 

Wlad is the major omission in most lists. People focus too much on what happened before he won about twenty straight title fights.

 

Legit and they can't admit he had one of the best reigns in heavyweight history but put people who barely had a reign as ahead of him.

 

Guys who lost to Jimmy Young, even.

 

Mike were undisputed.

 

Enjoyed reading through this.

 

At least Dumb and Dumber gave us some entertainment.

 

St8 fax.

 

@young griffo

 

I have Holmes ahead personally but I can see why a different criteria could have Tyson ahead.

 

I genuinely can't see how Tyson is supposed to be ahead of Larry in any metric.

 

Read de ****in thread mate

 

Yeah, the thread consists of people destroying NoNeck's arguments, lol.

 

The thread’s a joke.


I loved Mike. Probably as much as anyone.

But he had no longevity as a great fighter.

Now if your criteria is based on H2H ability, then fair enough. You can rate him extremely highly.

But if not, he can’t be top 5.


And Wlad being 4th or 5th?

GTFO!


You cannot be ranked that highly, when you get knocked out 3 times in your 20’s, all against non great opposition.

When you hit the deck 13 times in your career, and you get your brother to avenge a loss for you.

You cannot be ranked 4th or 5th, when you can barely beat Sam Peter and impersonate an octopus against Povetkin.


To all the genius posters here who talk about his great reign:

1. It was only possible due to Vitali’s injuries and retirements.

2. His reign was during a very weak period.

3. He could never have replicated that in a stronger era.


You’d have to be an idiot to rank him above Larry Holmes.